|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 644
Elite Member
|
I think I see now -- you're claiming that scientists have to re-define decay rates because you think decay rates change.
I've got a lot of information to share with you as to why this is not the case. Should I start now, or would you like to present any information yourself first? All the two studies you linked to show is that decay rates are being defined with more precision. Maybe you can start by explaining how exactly you think decay rates changed in the past or are changing now. I'll warn you that you'll have to be prepared to deal with some science. Both my links show clear and undeniable changes in the rates of decay. One shows changes in the decay rate of 90Sr, and the other shows changes in the decay of 92Sr. Can you read or not? I can read and neither paper claims that the decay rate changed. Both claim that it was imprecise measurements or failure to account for all variables that caused the previously posted rates to be incorrect. Why do you agree with the scientist's measurements yet disagree with their conclusions especially since the new measurements are the result of accounting for the variables that they claim caused the incorrect measurements? At least that is what I understood from the papers you presented. Perhaps you could quote places in the paper that show my understanding of them to be incorrect.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
